Will Obergefell be overturned?

[Horus]

Apparently the majority of Americans think it will be. What do you think?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I still think it won't be. Gorsuch supports it, Kavanaugh might, and Roberts loves stare decisis. I could totally see Barrett being like "well the other Trumpists like it, so so do I!". The only 100% overturn votes are Thomas and Alito.

Honestly even Griswold may be okay, since Kavanaugh explicitly said in 2018 that it was correctly decided (he never used that wording for Roe). But at least that is a more credible thing to worry about, since it starts with 4 solid votes to overturn, while Obergefell starts with only two.

[Skill and Chance]

I still think it won't be. Gorsuch supports it, Kavanaugh might, and Roberts loves stare decisis. I could totally see Barrett being like "well the other Trumpists like it, so so do I!". The only 100% overturn votes are Thomas and Alito.

Honestly even Griswold may be okay, since Kavanaugh explicitly said in 2018 that it was correctly decided (he never used that wording for Roe). But at least that is a more credible thing to worry about, since it starts with 4 solid votes to overturn, while Obergefell starts with only two.

Obergefell has an equal protection component and at minimum I don't see Roberts and Gorsuch touching it after Bostock.  Anything based solely on the right to privacy like Griswold is obviously in more danger, but is a red state really going to try to ban birth control?  This only even comes up if they do.   

[Koharu]

If things continue as they are, with no federal law codifying the right to gay marriage (so if the filibuster stays in place) and no changes to the supreme court, yes, Obergefell will be overturned. Not tomorrow, maybe not even next year, but soon.

Pretty much everything that has used the 14th amendment as foundational is now up for re-litigation, and the Federalist Society seems determined to return us to the status quo of 1788, or at least 1865. Since their people are now in control of the Supreme Court, that's where we're headed, with all the loss in rights for most Americans that entails.

[Koharu]

Roberts loves stare decisis.

I am not being sarcastic or mocking when I ask this: How, with a straight face, can you say that after Dobbs?

Roe was 49 years old, with additional rulings using it as foundational. Casey was 31, only five years younger than I am. Stare decisis is dead.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Roberts loves stare decisis.

I am not being sarcastic or mocking when I ask this: How, with a straight face, can you say that after Dobbs?

Roe was 49 years old, with additional rulings using it as foundational. Casey was 31, only five years younger than I am. Stare decisis is dead.

Roberts was not part of the majority opinion in Dobbs.

[Senator Spark]

I think it's possible, now that the Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. Especially after ultra-conservatives on the Court like Thomas or Alito have made these types of statements insinuating that it may happen. All cases involving due process are definitely not safe at this point. Most Americans expect it to be challenged and overturned, but that doesn't mean the majority or I support it being overturned.

[Koharu]

Roberts wrote in concurrence with the judgement. He didn't agree with the broad claims that the majority made, but he still agreed with the judgement, which, whether he liked it or not, overturned all of Roe and Casey. He wanted it to be more limited, but he still concurred.

His vote was to remove part of the Roe ruling, which still flies in the face of stare decisis.

[lfromnj]

Roberts loves stare decisis.

I am not being sarcastic or mocking when I ask this: How, with a straight face, can you say that after Dobbs?

Roe was 49 years old, with additional rulings using it as foundational. Casey was 31, only five years younger than I am. Stare decisis is dead.

Why do so many people think Robert's voted to overturn? He did not. It was 5-4.

He technically did vote to mildly  overturn Roe but more similar to Casey by using a new framework.(trimester> viability>reasonable oppurtunity) Overall the case was 6 3 because the law was upheld but Roberts didn't vote to overturn Roe even if he did want to weaken it a bit more.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Roberts loves stare decisis.

I am not being sarcastic or mocking when I ask this: How, with a straight face, can you say that after Dobbs?

Roe was 49 years old, with additional rulings using it as foundational. Casey was 31, only five years younger than I am. Stare decisis is dead.

Roberts was not part of the majority opinion in Dobbs.

I don't think Obergefell will be overturned, but Roberts did toss a century old Montana campaign finance law, so he can be a batsh**t crazy activist judge when he wants to be.

[Ferguson97]

My guess is still no, but pretending that it's completely out of the question is just naïve.

[Person Man]

Anything involving Due Process? I don’t know. Equal Protection? Probably not, but there is a nonzero chance. If there were a 7th federalist on the bench, yes. I could see that for every controversial court ruling involving the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment since 1937  having a petitioner seeking to overrule it successfully getting certiorari.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think it's good that Americans think it will be and seem fearful of a slippery slope. At this point you can't rule it out. And the consequences may very well be even worse. I think the average American will relate more to marriage (since it affects both sexes) than they do to consequences of abortion bans, and will despise the Supreme Court even more. However, that could also be a reason why it doesn't get overturned by our simple-minded Justices (save for Thomas who is just the f***ing worst).

Raise that outrage exponentially even more if the contraception ban comes to fruition too.

[Vosem]

Lean yes, not because of the current court composition, but because the Senate makeup means the court is going to continue drifting right and there's no obvious way to stop that from happening; in fact the strength of the conservative legal movement is such that, even if the Republican Party moderates significantly, the courts would continue drifting right until the whole edifice is replaced, which would take much longer than the Republican Party moderating.

[LostInOhio]

No. I know the common consensus among my fellow Democrats is that it is gone, but I think the gay marriage battle is over and done and has been since 2015.

I think any case would get punted based on precedent before SCOTUS even agrees to hear it. If they did hear it, I think it’d be a 6-1-2 decision.

Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett & Gorsuch in the majority for upholding it; Roberts will concur with the majority; and Thomas & Alito will vote to overturn.

I’d say I’m about 90% certain this is how it would turn out. Barrett is the only one I’m unsure of.

Anyone who knows conservative religious people understands that abortion to them is far worse and more serious in their minds than LGBT rights are at this moment. I wish religion didn’t influence our SCOTUS justices but it clearly does; however, the fact is that they have affirmed their sincere belief that abortion is murder and have stated several times in the ruling that their ruling applies only to abortion and nothing else.

“But they lied at their confirmation hearing and said they wouldn’t overturn Roe!” Maybe you should rewatch what each of them said, as they said it was an “established precedent” not that they wouldn’t overturn it. The wording they utilized in their ruling for Dobbs and the manner in which they insist it applies solely to abortion is quite strong.  Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/28/did-supreme-court-justices-lie-by-claiming-they-wouldnt-overturn-roe-v-wade-heres-what-they-actually-said/amp/

Here is another article which better defends my position here: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/24/why-other-fundamental-rights-are-safe-at-least-for-now/

[MasterJedi]

If it gets to the SC it will be.

[Nyvin]

Lean yes, not because of the current court composition, but because the Senate makeup means the court is going to continue drifting right and there's no obvious way to stop that from happening; in fact the strength of the conservative legal movement is such that, even if the Republican Party moderates significantly, the courts would continue drifting right until the whole edifice is replaced, which would take much longer than the Republican Party moderating.

That seems extremely unlikely considering the two oldest justices (not including Breyer) are the two most conservative ones.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Lean yes, not because of the current court composition, but because the Senate makeup means the court is going to continue drifting right and there's no obvious way to stop that from happening; in fact the strength of the conservative legal movement is such that, even if the Republican Party moderates significantly, the courts would continue drifting right until the whole edifice is replaced, which would take much longer than the Republican Party moderating.

Which is a disaster for the long-term electoral viability of the Republican Party. It gives Democrats a permanent wedge issue to inflame grievances among an upcoming generation far more liberal than the last to rage against an unpopular, unaccountable institution. The conservative movement will continue to drift further from popular opinion and rely less and less on trying to bring its case to the people in order to get their way.

We are witnessing the christening of a new out of touch elite ruling over American life, and it will carry severe electoral penalties for the Republican Party in the near future.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Lean yes, not because of the current court composition, but because the Senate makeup means the court is going to continue drifting right and there's no obvious way to stop that from happening; in fact the strength of the conservative legal movement is such that, even if the Republican Party moderates significantly, the courts would continue drifting right until the whole edifice is replaced, which would take much longer than the Republican Party moderating.

Which is a disaster for the long-term electoral viability of the Republican Party. It gives Democrats a permanent wedge issue to inflame grievances among an upcoming generation far more liberal than the last to rage against an unpopular, unaccountable institution. The conservative movement will continue to drift further from popular opinion and rely less and less on trying to bring its case to the people in order to get their way.

We are witnessing the christening of a new out of touch elite ruling over American life, and it will carry severe electoral penalties for the Republican Party in the near future.

Republicans won't care as long as they have the Supreme Court.

Only when the Court has a liberal majority will they ever recognize their unpopular goals, much like how they will only start caring about the Electoral College when they end up losing it while winning the popular vote. And both of those possibilities are incredibly unlikely. Maybe they'll happen at some point, but not soon enough.

[Badger]

Step one. Will some conservative state legislatures reading the Hobbs decision take the opportunity to pass a law Banning gay marriage in the hope that OB g e r f e l l will be overturned? Almost surely, probably within the next year something will be passed

As far as the Supremes ruling? Assuming it's the same court makeup as now by the time the case wines its way up there, all we have to hope for is that Justice Gorsuch doesn't distinguish his textualist base decision in Bostock with his holding in Hobbs. That's a 50/50 chance at best.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Lean yes, not because of the current court composition, but because the Senate makeup means the court is going to continue drifting right and there's no obvious way to stop that from happening; in fact the strength of the conservative legal movement is such that, even if the Republican Party moderates significantly, the courts would continue drifting right until the whole edifice is replaced, which would take much longer than the Republican Party moderating.

Which is a disaster for the long-term electoral viability of the Republican Party. It gives Democrats a permanent wedge issue to inflame grievances among an upcoming generation far more liberal than the last to rage against an unpopular, unaccountable institution. The conservative movement will continue to drift further from popular opinion and rely less and less on trying to bring its case to the people in order to get their way.

We are witnessing the christening of a new out of touch elite ruling over American life, and it will carry severe electoral penalties for the Republican Party in the near future.

Republicans won't care as long as they have the Supreme Court.

Only when the Court has a liberal majority will they ever recognize their unpopular goals, much like how they will only start caring about the Electoral College when they end up losing it while winning the popular vote. And both of those possibilities are incredibly unlikely. Maybe they'll happen at some point, but not soon enough.

This is going to lead to a much more radicalized left that’s willing to start taking a sledgehammer to the courts since it’s the only institution Republicans truly care about. That apple cart will get upended the same way the court is disrupting the status quo now. The chaos this is unleashing will eventually come around to consuming the courts as well.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Lean yes, not because of the current court composition, but because the Senate makeup means the court is going to continue drifting right and there's no obvious way to stop that from happening; in fact the strength of the conservative legal movement is such that, even if the Republican Party moderates significantly, the courts would continue drifting right until the whole edifice is replaced, which would take much longer than the Republican Party moderating.

Which is a disaster for the long-term electoral viability of the Republican Party. It gives Democrats a permanent wedge issue to inflame grievances among an upcoming generation far more liberal than the last to rage against an unpopular, unaccountable institution. The conservative movement will continue to drift further from popular opinion and rely less and less on trying to bring its case to the people in order to get their way.

We are witnessing the christening of a new out of touch elite ruling over American life, and it will carry severe electoral penalties for the Republican Party in the near future.

Republicans won't care as long as they have the Supreme Court.

Only when the Court has a liberal majority will they ever recognize their unpopular goals, much like how they will only start caring about the Electoral College when they end up losing it while winning the popular vote. And both of those possibilities are incredibly unlikely. Maybe they'll happen at some point, but not soon enough.

This is going to lead to a much more radicalized left that’s willing to start taking a sledgehammer to the courts since it’s the only institution Republicans truly care about. That apple cart will get upended the same way the court is disrupting the status quo now. The chaos this is unleashing will eventually come around to consuming the courts as well.

The consequences and threats that could be part of our uncertain future are staggeringly scary and unsustainable. I really don't know what can fix this. We're in way too deep.

[Hammy]

Roe opened the floodgates and there's no closing them, and Republicans have gone far more extreme against gays than they'd been at any point in the last 50 years.

[Pres Mike]

Probably not. It could happen but I don't see it happening.

[Badger]

Roe opened the floodgates and there's no closing them, and Republicans have gone far more extreme against gays than they'd been at any point in the last 50 years.

Insert osr program claiming that Republicans are now socially moderate because beep boop beep boop 0110011001